and ceaseth to be any longer Catholick If then the former or present differences between the Roman and Greek Churches are such as have been by former Church-Authority superior to both Canonically decided and determin'd as suppose by the Lateran Council under Innocent III. or of that of Lions under Gregory X. or that of Florence under Eugenius IV. and the Eastern Churches disobeying these Acts have separated from or thereupon been rejected by the Roman Communion observing them Or again If the Greek Church have made a discession and rent from the Prime Patriarch of the Church and the Chair of St. Peter in denying any of those Priviledges and that Authority which rightly belongs to him over the whole Church of Christ in order to the preserving the perpetual Peace and Unity thereof things which it concerns me not here to determine the Greek Churches by this Separation from the Roman must stand guilty of a Schism from the Catholick Church and cease to be any true Members thereof Neither indeed have these Churches since this Division like wither'd branches retain'd any Dignity Authority Growth or Extent equal to the Roman or such as they had formerly this indeed hap'ning to them from the opression of an open enemy to Christianity but yet perhaps the same also an Instrument of God's displeasure against them § 79 Lastly As for the latest Division of the Reforming Party in the West much-what the same may be said of it as was but now of the Arian It is known when that single person stood alone who began it and it spread afterward by the support of the Secular power against Church-authority and when in its greatest growth but an inconsiderable part in comparison of the Whole Which also hath cast it off from her Communion condemn'd it by her Councils and permits not any of her Members to have any external Communion with it And tho at first by reason both of foreign Invasions from the Turk and many Civil Wars in Christian States it made especially in climates more remote from the residence and superintendency of the chief Hierarchy of the Church a very great and speedy increase yet the vigour of its age may be thought already past and it is a long time that it seems to be in its Wane and decadency expecting still and prophesying to it self the fall of Antichrist till it self by little and little be sunk down into its grave So many parts therefore as fall off once from their union with the main Body can be accounted no longer any members of the Church-Catholick nor yet lawfully continue a Church-Communion or Succession of Clergy among themselves Because there can be but unum Corpus as unus Dominus Christus Eph. 4.5 from which Body any part separated strait withereth and separated from the Body is so also from the Head Christ Tho all among these are not really cut off from the Head or Body that the Church externally separates from it by her Censures Which proceed upon these according to the outward profession which only the Church sees but cannot discern the inward affection and disposition which secretly may still continue some of those to the Body whom her Censures removes from it Such are the invincibly ignorant or those that without malice are involv'd in such Schism especially where the fundamental Faith is not diminish'd by any Heresie added to Schism But tho this plea of Ignorance invincible do seem good and credible for many in the present Greek Churches if these Churches may be concluded Schismatical kept in so much slavery illiterature and darkness yet it is to be fear'd it will fail many in the Reform'd Churches where too much presumption of Knowledg seems to be the chief thing that hath destroy'd their Obedience and Conformity to the whole FINIS THE THIRD TREATISE OF THE FIRST PART OF ANCIENT Church-Government REFLECTING On the late writings of several Learned Protestants Bishop Bramhall Dr. Field Dr. Fern Dr. Hammond and others on this Subject OXFORD Printed in the year M.DC.LXXXVIII CONTENTS SVbordination of Glergy § 1. Three Patriarchs only at the first § 2. The first of these the Bishop of Rome § 3. The extent of his Patriarchate The 2d the Bishop of Alexandria § 4. The 3d. the Bishop of Antioch § 5. From whence their Superiority over other Bishops § 6. The See of Constantinople advanced to a Patriarchate in the next place to Rome § 7. The great extent of this Patriarchate in latter times The See of Jerusalem raised to a Patriarchate in the 5th place § 8. The authority of Patriarchs and other Ecclesiastical Governors for the ordinations or confirmations and for judging the causes upon appeal of their inferiors § 9. Where concerning the authority of the Council of Sardica § 11. A Digression concerning the controversy between the Bishops of Africk and Rome about Appeals § 12. Whether transmarine Appeals in some cases very necessary § 14. Those not subjected to any Patriarch for Ordination yet subjected for decision of controversies § 18. The Patriarchs also subjected to the judgment of a superior Patriarch § 20. The power of Jurisdiction not only Primacy of Dignity of the Bishop of Rome above the rest of the Patriarchs and Bishops ib. This power exemplified in the Primitive time to the end of the 6th age the days of Gregory the Great § 21 to 31. A Digression concerning the meaning of that ancient Canon Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum § 22. A Digression concerning the Title of Universalis Epipiscopus assumed by the Constantinopolitan and declined by the Roman Bishops § 26. A Digression concerning the Patriarchship of Ravenna and Justiniana prima urged by Dr. Hammond § 30. The authority of this See of Rome by Protestants allowed to be the more orthodox in all other divisions that have bin made from it save only their own § 31. n. 2. By the former clear allegations some other controverted sayings of the Fathers expounded § 32. c. The Protestants ordinary replies to the authorities above cited to me seeming not satisfactory § 36. That such power which was anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome was not exercised by him jointly only with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended § 37. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by the Ecclesiastical Canons and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by any power secular § 38. The concessions of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond in this matter § 39. Several pretences to weaken such Canons to me seeming invalid § 41. That obedience due may not be withdrawn upon Governors undue claimes § 47. That Ecclesiastical Councils may change their former Ecclesiastical Laws tho Lay-Magistrates may not change them § 48. That Prelats and others stand obliged to those Church-Canons which in a superior Council are made with the consent of their Predecessors till such Council shall reverse them § 49. Reflections upon what hath him said That the
for a false Religion we find this done in wicked Jeroboam and consequently we read of his making for his new Religion also new Priests § 69 Thus I say the Temporal authority may much advance and further the Spiritual but no Secular power hath the least authority in Spiritual matters to act contrary to those who are Ministers of Christ's power and unreasonable it is to think that he may do more against them who is part of their flock than the Heathen Princes might do who had no relation and if Christianity entring into any country changeth not any laws thereof but confirms all obedience thereto then neither may the civil Government admitted into Christianity abridge any of its priviledges which priviledges may as well subsist with a Christian Sovereignty as they have done with a Heathen But if they offer any violence unto it the Church to whom not to them God hath committed his flock may and ought as it also often hath with the weapons Christ hath given her to oppose them and tho not to fight yet to speak to profess to suffer and die for the cause See the opposition the Priests made to Vzziah generally a good Prince 2 Chron. 26.18 and that of Athanasius and Alexander Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople to Constantine requiring the restoring of Arius Excommunicated and that of Ambrose to Theodosius Neither can the Bishops at any time excuse their not governing and defending and patronizing the flock of Christ under pretence either of the care that Christian Princes their Sovereigns have of it or enmity they have to it For either these Princes second their authority and then they have all encouragement to exercise it or else they oppose and persecute it and then they are to do no less than their Predecessors did in the Primitive bloody times taking up their Cross and following Christ and their Leaders which had they not done Christianity had not descended so far as us and if these do not the same it cannot be propagated to posterity See more of this subject in Church-government part 1. § 70 Obj. But what if all or the much greater part of the Clergy run into error may not the Temporal Magistrate then Reform it I answer 1. That concerning points or truths necessary to salvation the Supposition is impossible until our Saviour shall cancel his promise of their indefectibility in such necessaries 2ly That for any other Spiritual matters wherein perhaps they may err yet the Temporal Magistrate may not reform because he that in Spiritual things is to learn of them what is truth and what error can never judge when they err unless they first tell him so What you will say cannot judge when as he hath the Holy Scriptures left to demonstrate to him truth and error I ask were they left to him alone or hath he any evidence therefrom which the Clergy hath not Or doth the Secular man study them more than they who make this their employment and trade Yes but their eyes are blinded in many things with self-interest namely in those which some way concern their own priviledges c. 1. Then in all Doctrines no way advancing the priviledges of the Church the Prince may not swerve from its judgment Well it were if but so much were observed But 2ly For these matters of interest it were something that were said if where the Ecclesiastical power were interested on the one side of the controversy the Secular power which claims right to judge were not as much on the other and whatever priviledges were taken from the one were not devolved upon the other For example If Henry 8th and his Lords had took the Supremacy in Church-affairs from the Pope and not transferred on themselves it were something tho not sufficient that were said but in such concernments men being equal judge in which we have reason to expect the more integrity that they will not claim more than their due But 3ly Suppose that our Saviour had granted his Church some great priviledges as such a thing is possible either these priviledges by them must not be maintained or such a cavil cannot be prevented But methinks this is enough to preserve truth in their sentence who are most accounted men of conscience tho in matters concerning themselves That by a false judgment a greater interest hereafter is lost than is for the present gained § 71 But here observe of those who upon many such-like pretences rob the Church of her Legislative power for Spiritual matters that they cannot place it else where tho they try several ways nor yet deny any such power at all but with great absurdities and mischief sometime or other to truth and the Christian profession Some of them bestow it on the Civil Magistrate without limitation so as to oblige all men without disputing to obey whatever in these things he determines as a Country-man of ours But this is so gross a tenent I need spend no labour to shew the many horrible consequences thereof Some again bestow it upon the same supreme Magistrate so as to oblige men only to obey him I mean actively in what they think not contrary to the Divine Laws and for other things which they think contrary not to resist any punishment inflicted on them for not obeying actively i. e. in believing and practising as that Magistrate appoints Thus G. Vossius H. Grotius Jus Imp. circa Sacra and ordinarily Protestants Vossius represents the matter briefly thus in an Epistle inserted in Praestantium Virorum Ep. p. 167. Synodi falli possunt Magistratus non debet iis credere propter se sed quia consentiunt cum Scripturis Canonibus antiquis Et haec Synodus et ille errori est obnoxius sed hoc non impedit quo minus Synodi Officium sit dirigere intellectum in cognitionem veri tum magistratus imperare quod rectum est salutare Quodsi illa dirigit male non ideo hic imperabit male si hic imperet malum non ideo subditi parere debent in malo Sed Magistraetus subditus unusquisque aget quod sui esse officii Scriptura Ecclesiae Catholicae consensus recta ratio persuaserit i. e. what Scripture Church or Reason seems to him to perswade But may the Magistrate then punish here those that disobey his commands Yes saith he Rex illud imperare debet quod in verbo jussit Deus paenarum comminatione obstringere ad illud subditor potest nec in his imperium detrectare cuiquam licet In his if he means which both Prince and Subject are agreed to be God's Word this is certain But mean-while if the Subject apprehends that contrary to God's Word which the Magistrate saith is not and commands as his Word here the Subject may and ought to disobey him And upon this the question still proceeds How the Magistrate may justly punish the Subject for not doing a thing where the Subject
he found him wrongfully Suspended and therefore t is true also that the 6th canon Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissime commisit but not in every case unappealably to Superiors as appears by the African Bishop's qualification in that Epistle Ne festinato ne praepropere quoted before As for the several Reasons they give to these it may be replied on the other side That the Patriarch tho he were neither more prudent nor better informed from others in difficult matters nor more assisted from Heaven yet t is probable that such might as having a more choice election both be more knowing and according to the eminency of his place assisted both with a wiser Council and a greater portion of God's Spirit yet must he needs be a less partial Judge in such matters because not so nearly interessed in the cause nor in the persons as the Metropolitan often must be or also other Bishops who live upon the place and are subject to his power That the Provincial Councils which they mention tho their judgment were never so entire were not always to be had and were much seldomer assembled than the Canons appoint much rarer yet Councils universal neither of them by reason of the great trouble fit upon every such difference to be called And hence fails that Apology which Dr. Field 5. l. 39 c. p. 563. makes for the Africans in these words The Africans tho within the Patriarchship of Rome disliked the Appeals of Bishops to Rome because they might have right against their Metropolitans in a general Synod of Africk wherein the Primat sate as President for otherwise Bishops wronged by their Metropolitans might by the canons appeal to their own Patriarch Thus far he Therefore the Africans denying this went against the canons That the canons of the Council of Sardica which the African Bishops then knew not of were sufficient to warrant his receiving of such appeals and if any former African decrees be pleaded against him much more may these of Sardica for him That many cases are not matter of fact where witnesses are necessary but questions de jure where the fact is confessed and that in such no more plea can be made to have them tried at home than the Mosaical Legalists of Antioch could justly have demanded not to have this matter arbitrated at Jerusalem or Arius of Alexandria at Nice That for the conveniency of hearing witnesses where necessary in such appeals it was ordered indeed anciently that whensoever it could safely be done such causes should be arbitrated in the same or some adjoining Provinces by some Judges either sent thither or there delegated by the Patriarch of which the 7th canon of Sardica seems to take special care in the non-observance of which canons some Roman Bishops perhaps may have bin culpable and caused great affliction to their subjects but yet that other exigencies might occur every cause not being fit to be decided by delegates which required the trial to be at the Patriarchal residency to which the trouble of witnesses must give place which trials at Rome are also allowed by the Council see Conc. Sard. can 4. And this grave Assembly we have no reason to think but that they weighed the troubles of such appeals as well as the Africans afterward or we now but thought fit to admit smaller inconveniences to avoid greater mischiefs namely in the intervals of Councils schisms and divisions between Provincial and between National Churches by the Church her having thus so many Supremes terminating all Spiritual causes within themselves as there were Provinces or countries Christian See Dr. Field allowing such appeals below § 20. and especially S. Austin Ep. 162. where he justifies the appeal of Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage wronged by a Council of 70. Bishops held in Africk whereof was President the Primat of Numidia whose power and authority Dr. Hammond equals to that of Patriarchs Schism 3. c. p. 58. to a transmarine judgment tho Donatus his party much crying out against such appeals and tho it was in a matter meerly of fact namely whether Caecilian was ordained by some who were traditores sacrorum Codicum igni in time of persecution because such judgment was dis-engaged in the quarrel His words are Sibi i.e. Caeciliano videbat apud Ecclesiam transmarinam a privatis inimicitiis ab utraque parte dissensionis alienam incorruptum integrum examen suae causae remanere And again Qui i.e. Caecilianus posset non curare conspirantem multitudinem inimicorum i.e. in Africk cum se videret Romanae Ecclesiae in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus caeteris terris per communicatorias literas esse conjunctum ubi paratus esset causam suam dicere for all Churches had power to clear and examin his cause in respect of entertaining communion with him and sending their communicatory letters c. tho all Churches had not such power in respect of righting him against his adversaries but only his superior Patriarch Again An forte non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium quod ab Afris septuaginta ubi Primas Numidiae Tigisitanus praesedit fuerat terminatum Quid quod nec usurpavit Rogatus quippe Imperator Judices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent de tota illa causa quod justum videretur statuerent This transmarine judgment here you see S. Austin justifies notwithstanding the Donatists might have used the foresaid § 12. plea of the African Fathers of the 6th Council and of Cyprian especially in the trial of a matter of fact § 15 But concerning this foreign judgment of Caecilians cause before I leave it I must not conceal to you what Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 7. s 10. relates thereof in prejudice of the Pope's authority objecting there That Caecilian had his cause tried indeed by the Bishop of Rome but by him only as the Emperor 's Delegate and not by him singly but with other special Delegates join'd with him that from this judgment an appeal being made by Caecilian's adversaries then the Emperor Constantine so great an honorer of the Church's privileges appointed the Bishop of Arles in France Qui sedet Judex saith he ut post Roman Pontificem quod visum fuerit pronunciet And again an appeal being made from him also 't is further urg'd That the Emperor judg'd the cause after all himself For answer to which I refer you to the relation of this story by St. Augustin against the Donatists Epist 162. where you will find those Assessors to be join'd by the Emperor to the Bishop of Rome ad preces Donatistarum who well knew Melchiades much favouring Caecilian's cause You may see Constantine's Letter to Melchiades and Marcus one of his Assessors in Eus l. 1. c. 5. The Donatists here cast pretending some new evidence requested of the Emperor yet another hearing of their cause upon which dedit Ille
under several other Laws besides that of Nature written in every man's Conscience Rom. 2. 14 15. Laws and Rules of Worship reveal'd and deliver'd by God to Adam himself at first or to other Holy men even of the first times and many of these Laws the same with those after ward recorded by Moses So for the Church we find righteous Abel serving God in a way well pleasing to him and offering acceptable Sacrifice and an early type of our Saviour slain and martyr'd by the Nead of the Race of the Church's Persecutors out of envy to his sanctity Heb. 11.4 1 Joh. 3.12 Upon his death Seth raised in his stead a Father of the Holy Race Gen. 5.1 2 3. His Son Enos the first more eminent publick Preacher of Righteousness see 2 Pet. 2.5 In whose time it is said that people now began more publickly to call on the name of the Lord Gen. 4.26 Enoch the fifth from him a Prophet Jude 14. and in a most singular manner pious Gen. 5.24 Heb. 11.5 6. the eighth from Enos Noah again a famous Preacher of Righteousness 1 Pet. 3.19 2 Pet. 2.5 In whose times the Members of the Church are by a special name call'd the Sons of God Gen. 5.2 From him again we find the Church continued to Abraham a Prophet Gen. 20.7 Psal 105.15 In whose time also was Melchisedech the Priest of the most high God Gen. 14.18 And to Abraham we find a Promise made by God of the never-failing of his Seed i. e. of the Children of his Faith and Holy Religion i. e. of the Church So soon as this Spiritual Seed began to cease among the Jews then it being continued to him still among the Gentiles See Rom. 4.12 16.17 Gal. 3.7 c. Gal. 4. Joh. 8. 39.44 Luk. 19.9 § 5 This for the old Church Next for the old Laws Rules and Government under which it liv'd we find early mention of several of these long before Moses his committing them to record Of Holy Persons Priests Prophets Intercessors Gen. 14 18.-20.7 17. Exod. 19.22 24.5 Of Holy Times Gen. 2.3 Exod. 16.23 Of Holy Places Gen. 4.12 14 16 -28.17-35.1 12 6.-26.25 Ex. 3.5 Of Altars Gen. 8.20 which the Patriarchs built in such places where God appear'd to them Gen. 12 6.-26.25 Or where they made a longer abode Gen. 12 8.-13.4 18. Of Sacrifice Sacrifice of the firstlings and of the far Gen. 4.3 4. Burnt Offerings and Peace Offerings Gen. 8.20 Exod. 5 1.-10.25 The Birds in Sacrifice not divided Gen. 15.10 as it was afterward commanded in Lev. 1.17 Of clean and unclean Beasts Gen. 7.2 and of not eating the Blood Gen. 9.4 Of Purifyings Cleansings changing their Garments c. Gen. 2. Of Tythes paid to the Priest Gen. 14.20 Of making Vows Gen. 28.20 Of not matching with Unbelievers Gen. 6.2 comp 1. Of the Brother's raising of Seed to his Brother Gen. 38 8.comp Deut. 25.5 Thus then from the beginning God had a Church had Preachers and Priests and certain Rules of his due Worship 2. In these times it seems that the People for matter of Religion and God's Worship were cast wholly upon the Instructions and Doctrines Traditions and Dictates of their Guides for knowing their duty without any Written Records or Law of Natural Reason which these things transcended to examine these by and supposing that there should have happen'd to have been concerning any particular two contrary Traditions amongst these Teachers in all reason they ought to have follow'd the former and more universal Here also we may presume that these Fathers of the Church were then sufficiently assisted by God to deliver always to the People all truths necessary to their Salvation since they had no other Director to repair to § 6 2. To let these obscurer times pass and to come to those under the Law Written which was in all things a more express type of the Gospel Tho this Law seems much more punctually and methodically committed to Writing as to the Rule thereof than the Gospel is yet there was a Judg and certain Courts appointed for the Exposition thereof in difficult matters Which Office at first we find Moses who also had continual recourse to God in his Doubts to have executed for some time both for Religious and for Civil causes alone To whom saith the Text Exod. 18.16 the people when they had a matter came and he made them know the Statutes of God and his Laws Afterward to ease him of this great burthen especially as to ordinary Civil matters we find by Jethro's advice but also God's approbation other able men chosen out of the people and set over Tens Fifties Hundreds and Thousands to decide the easier matters but to bring the harder still to Moses Exod. 18.13 c. And he still alone to be for the People to God ward to bring the causes unto God teach them Ordinances and shew them the Work that they must do Exod. 18.19 20. Afterward yet more to ease him in these more difficult matters we find by God's appointment Seventy Elders chosen out of the former Officers and Judges more immediately to assist him which Seventy Elders to enable them for this higher employment had part of Moses his Spirit taken and put upon them which Spirit at the first shew'd wonderful effects in them and magnified them before the People as Christ the Prophet whom Moses resembled Deut. 18.15 his Spirit also did at first when it was deriv'd on the chief Evangelical Judges and Magistrates Act. 2. See Numb 11.14 16 c. § 7 Thus it was order'd in the Wilderness Again when the People should come to the Land of Rest here we find besides the Inferior Judges distributed in the Country Deut. 16.18 by God's command a standing Court established in that City where God setled his Sanctuary and Presence that they also might there consult him in their difficulties established I say for the Exposition of the Law in all matters too hard for the other and we find all persons oblig'd under pain of Death to stand to their Decisions See for this Deut. 17 8 c. If there arise a matter too hard for thee i. e. the inferior Country-Judges Deuter. 16.18 in judgment between Blood and Blood between Plea and Plea or between stroke and stroke or Leper and Leper what in these was permitted or prohibited excusable or punishable or in what manner punishable according to the Letter of the Law being matters of Controversie within thy Gates or as the Vulgar Judicum intra portas tuas videris verba variari thou shalt then arise and get thee up unto the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse And thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and unto the Judg that chief Secular Magistrate or his Substitute because the matters brought before this Court were sometimes relating to God's sometimes to the King's Laws Causes some Ecclesiastical some Civi that shall be in those days and they shall shew thee the sentence
of Judgment And thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place shall shew thee according to all that they inform thee According to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee thou shalt do or as the Vulgar Quodcunque docuerint te juxta legem ejus facies Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand or to the lest And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to Minister there before the Lord or to the Judg as his Cause is Ecclesiastical or Civi even that man shall dy And all the people shall hear and fear and do no more presumptuously Thus Deuteronomy Again in 2 Chron 19.5 8 10 11. where Jehoshaphat in his Reformation amongst many other reduc'd this Law into practice the same thing is cxpress'd in these terms First v. 5. And he set Judges in the Land through-out all the fenced Cities of Judah c. answerable to Deut. 16.18 and then v. 8. Moreover in Jerusalem the place the Lord had chosen did Jehoshaphat set the Levites for under Officers and of the Priests and of the chief of the Fathers of Israel v. 11. for the judgment of the Lord and for controversies And he charg'd them saying what cause soever shall come unto you of your Brethren that dwell in their Cities between Blood and Blood between Law and Commandment Statutes and Judgments ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the Lord c. And behold Amasiah the chief Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord concerning his Law and Religion and Zebadiah the Ruler of the House of Judah for all the Kings matters concerning the King's Law and Civil Subjection Also the Levites shall be Officers before you c. See 1 Chron. 23.4 26.29 30. § 8 In these two places you may note That it is not or not only concerning matter of fact as some would have it that when doubt arose at the Country Sessions they were to repair to this Court at Jerusalem which fact was most easie and most fit to be judged upon the place But concerning matter of Law or Statute when question arose about that between Plea and Plea Law and Commandment statutes and judgments saith the Text see Diodate's Comment in Deut. 17. 8. and according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee c. Again it is not for matter of Law in such a sense as some would have it namely that the Litigant was to be put to death if he obey'd not the sentence of the Judg whensoever he judg'd right and according to the Law of God But that he judging otherwise he was not tied to obey him nor might be put to death for disobedience in such case For so Bishop Andrews Tort. Torti answers Bellarmin urging this place Quali Sacerdotis imperio obediendum Ita praecedentia verba babent imperio Sacerdotis juxta legem Dei docentis Tum sequeris sententiam ejus turn si superbierit c. But who is it that shall judge when this Supreme Court appealed to judgeth juxta legem Dei when not Surely it must be the litigant or no body unless there can be a Super-supreme Court But then how absurd this for so whenever the Litigant judgeth the Judge to have judged not according to this law he is free from obeying his sentence and consequently from punishment for any disobedience thereof unless the Judge can by God's law punish him for doing only what God's law permits him Therefore Quodcunque docuerint te juxta legem Dei in the Vulgar which the Bishop here is pleated to make use of meaneth only this Quodcunque doenerint te esse juxta legem Dei these being the supreme expositors of the Law to the people as is clear from the Hebrew rendred thus Super os legis quam docebunt te super judicium quod dicent tibi facies and from the Septuagint Secundum legem secundum judicium quodcunque dixerint tibi and the Syriack Secundum praescriptionem legis quam tibi indicabunt and the other famous Translations and also from the English according to the sentence of the Law which sentence they shall teach thee and clear also from the context requiring also most strict and absolute obedience Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand nor to the left He that will not hearken to the Priest that man shall dy § 9 Again it is not only in a case of suffering and patiently submitting to a punishment which this Court shall inflict as some would have it see Chilingworth c. 5. § 109 110. but also of doing what it shall direct For the words are plain Deut. 17.9 Thou shalt observe to do all that they shall inform thee not turning to any hand and 2 Chron. 19.10 it is said to the Judges Ye shall warn them that they trespass not against the Lord which cannot be meant of punishments but in breaking his laws Again it is nor meant of doing neither what this Court shall direct that is in such things wherein meanwhile we are not bound to think also their determination lawful and their sentence just As one may lawfully pay a mulct of an 100 l. wherein he is condemned by the Court without thinking their sentence lawful because any one when wrong is done him may cedere suo jure without sinning therein Thus Mr. Chilling worth would avoid this place urged by Mr. Knot and in his instance indeed no more is required than he affirms but it seemeth also an obligation to think such determination and sentence just and lawful as in all those instances may be made appear where the party is enjoined by this Court to perform some neglected duty to God or his Neighbour and not only sentenced to undergo some punishiment as certainly all the decrees and determinations of that Court were not only about passive obedience satisfactions and punishments but active too duties and service Now this is certain that none may do any thing which he doth not first think is lawful to be done or at least which he doth not go so far as to think that it is unlawful to be done for Conscientia erronea obligat And next he cannot think such thing lawful to be done so long as he thinketh that God hath forbidden it or commanded the contrary of it to be done Therefore as long as he thinketh that he may lawfully do it so long he thinks or at least is not certain but that it is agreeable to God's command and so long he thinks or is not certain of the contrary but that the determination of this court is right and just But here if any one would say That one may think a thing lawful to be done by him because it is commanded him by those Superiors whom God hath charged him in all things to
three Bishops had a superiority to the rest from most ancient custom and tradition From whence their superiority over other Bishops which was rather confirm'd than given to them in the Nicene Council as appears by those words in the 6th Canon thereof Mos antiquus perduret and by those in the 7th concerning some Honour also allow'd to the Bishop of Hierusalem yet manente Metropolitanae civitatis dignitate Quoniam mos antiquus obtinuit vetusta traditio Such expressions we find also in Conc. Antioch can 9. secundum antiquam a patribus nostris regulam constitutam and in Conc. Ephes can 8. singulis Provinciis pura inviolata quae jam inde ab initio habent jura serventur wherein the Councils shew themselves very zealous for preserving all ancient customs and privileges So St. Ignatius the Martyr living presently after the Apostles times in his Epistle to the Romans stiles himself the Pastor of the Church in Syria because that whole Region belong'd also in those times to the Metropolis of Antioch as Dr. Hammond observes out of him Sch. p. 50. And this superiority over the rest these three Metropolitans had as was anciently conjectur'd from St. Peter who was first or Primate of the Apostles his being Bishop of Rome and formerly of Antioch and his having also by his Disciple Mark sent thither a more particular relation to the Church of Alexandria These therefore were call'd Apostolicae sedes which title was also sometimes anciently communicated to some other Churches besides these where any of the Apostles had for any long time made their residence as to Ephesus to Jerusalem c. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Roman See the last and most eminent Seat of the two greatest Apostles Vid. Bell. de Roman Pont. l. 3. c. 2. l. 2. c. 27. St. Peter and St. Paul not disputing here what subordination there was between these two whose Government the Divine Wisdom thought meet to conclude in one and the same Succession is so stiled Which place from this rather than from the secular eminency and power of that City or from any other cause whatever if we may judg by the suffrages of Antiquity had the Honour and Primacy above all other Churches The secular eminency of that City was the reason indeed mention'd by the Bishops in Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. propter imperium civitatis illius because they endeavour'd the advancement of the Constantinopolitan Bishop the Patriarch of Alexandria Dioscorus being condemn'd by that Council as a Defender of Eutyches to the same priviledges with the Roman in the second place upon the like grounds But a reason disclaim'd by Leo the then Bishop of Rome and by his Legates and a reason also omitted and left out by themselves when they writ to Leo for his confirmation of their Canons who there give another reason of his Primacy viz. his Successorship in St. Peter's chair as appears below § 25. n. 2. See also Syricius Bishop of Rome A.D. 389. his Epistle ad Episcopum Tarraconensem a city in Spain Nobis major cunctis Christianae religionis zelus incumbit Portamus onera omnium qui gravantur Quinimo haec portat in nobis Beatus Apostolus Petrus qui nos in omnibus ut confidimus administrationis suae protegit tuetur haeredes See Leo serm 1. de natali Apostolorum thus speaking to Rome Per sacram Beati Petri sedem caput Orbis effecta latius praesides religione divina quam dominatione terrena And his Epist 58. to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and Ep. 66. to the Bishops of Chalced. Conc. in answer to the Letter sent from them where he hath these words Nihil Alexandrinae sedi ejus pereat dignitatis quam per Sanctum Marcum Evangelistam B. Petri Discipulum meruit Antiochena quoque Ecclesia in qua primum praedicante Apostolo Petro Christianum nomen exortum est in paternae i.e. Patrum Concilii Niceni constitutionis ordine perseveret c. and Ep. ad Marcinamum Augustum he saith Habeat Constantinopolitana civitas gloriam suam Alia tamen ratio est rerum saecularium alia divinarum c. And in conc Chalced. 16. sess see the answer of the Roman Legats Contradictio nostra his gestis inhaereat ut noverimus quid Apostolico viro Vniversalis Ecclesiae Papae deferre valeamus And see the confessions of the Council of Chalcedon it self in Act. 2. Petrus per Leonem locutus est and in their Epistle to Leo set down below § 25. n. 2. which clearly shews them not to have held the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome to have sprung only from the Secular greatness of the city but also from the Succession of S. Peter I have staid the longer upon this because of that passage in Dr. Hammond Schism 5. c. 4. s. See the words of Anacletus Ep. 3. if those Epistles he his in Dr. Field 5. l. 31. c. p. 515. to the same purpose as Leo's See Cyprian Ep. 55. ad Cornelium Bishop of Rome de Fortunato Faelicissimo Haereticis Insuper navigare audent ad Petri cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem And Ep. 52. Antoniano Cum Fabiani locus id est cum locus Petri vacaret factus est Cornelius Episcopus i. e. of Rome after Fabianus Irenaeus who lived in the 2d Age 3. l. 3. c. Maximae antiquissime omnibus cognitae a gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo fundatae constitutae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum usque ad nos pervenientem indicantes confundimus omnes eos qui per sui placentiam c praeterquam oportet colligunt Hosius in the Council of Sardica can 3. concerning Appeals to the Bishop of Rome proposing thus Si vobis placet S. Petri Apostoli memoriam honoremus ut scribatur Julio Romano Episcopo c. Hieron Ep. to Damasus concerning the word Hypostasis whether he might admit it Ideo mihi cathedram Petri fidem Apostolico ore laudatam censui consulendam Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum servatur authoritas alias haereditas Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudinis tuae i. e. cathedrae Petri communione consocior super illam Petram adificatam Ecclesiam scio And in another Ep. ad eundem Si quis cathedrae Petri jungitur meus est Greg. l. 4. Ep. 36. Quod mox idem decessor meus ut agnovit directis literis ex authoritate S. Petri Apostoli ejusdem Synodi acta cassavit And l. 6. Ep. 37. Eulogio Episcopo Alex. Quis nesciat sanctam Ecclesiam in Apostolorum Principis soliditate firmatam c. Cum multi sint Apostoli pro ipso tamen principatu sola Apostolorum Principis sedes in authoritate convaluit quae in tribus locis unius est Ipse enim sublimavit sedem in qua etiam quiescere praesentem vitam finire dignatus
saith St. Austin aliud Arelatense judicium aliorum scil Episcoporum this was the Council of Arles assembled in Constantine's time of which see more below § 23. n. 7. consisting of two hundred Bishops as Baronius conjectures out of St. Austin which Council included with more added to them Caecilian's former Judges non quia jam necesse erat sed eorum perversitatibus cedens omni modo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere Afterward they importunately appealing also from this Council to the Emperor 's own judgment He very earnest by any means to quell this growing division in the African Churches cessit eis saith St. Austin ut de illa causa post Episcopos judicaret a sanctis Antistitibus postea veniam petiturus dum tamen illi quod ulterius dicerent non haberent si ejus sententiae non obtemporarent See likewise Dr. Field's concessions l. 5. c. 53. p. 682. concerning this business both that the cause was judg'd by a Synod at Arles and that the Emperor's hearing the cause after them was irregular After this you may review what truth there is in the objection of Calvin § 16 Excuse this digression which I have made from § 12. concerning the difference between the African and Roman Bishop arising from these Canons of Sardica there urged Against which Canons whereas it is pretended 1. That they authorize the Roman Bishop only to judg such causes by his Deputies upon the place often said by Dr. Field see in him p. 530. 2. That the 9th Canon of Chalcedon a Council following this in ordering the Appeal ad Constantinopolitanae regiae civitatis sedem ut eorum ibi negotium terminetur contains something contrary to them The first appears not true by can 4. Sard. proclamaverit i. e. Episcopus depositus agendum sibi negotium in urbe Roma nisi causa fuerit in judicio Episcopi Romani determinata By the privilege granted to the Constantinopolitan and inferior Patriarch to the Roman Con. Chal. c. 9. ut eorum ibi negotium terminetur By the ordinary practice of the Roman Bishops in those early times thence therefore is the African Expostulation with him Quomodo judicium transmarinum ratum erit ad quod testium necessariae personae c. adduci non possunt And the like you may see urg'd by Cyprian see Field p. 563. Lastly by Dr. Field's confession l. 5. c. 34. p. 531. That the Pope with his Western Bishops might examine and judge at Rome the differences between two Patriarchs or between a Patriarch and his Bishops as 't is clear he did a little before the Sardican Council judg at Rome the cause of Athanasius how much more then the differences when of moment of the Subjects of his own Patriarchy To the second 't is confess'd That that Canon in respect of some parts namely of the East and of some differences namely of Bishops there with their Metropolitans doth restrain those of Sardica But first The African Controversie was before the Council of Chalcedon Again for the West at least it must be granted that those Canons stand good still and are not weaken'd but strengthen'd rather and imitated by Chalcedon which Council thought fit in this Canon to give that authority which Sardica conferr'd on the Roman to a Seat inferior to the Roman much more therefore may the Roman See if the Constantinopolitan have such privileges But lastly we know also that in this point of the Bishop of Constantinople's Dignity and Power the Eastern Bishops of that Council were oppos'd by the Bishop of Rome and his Legates § 17 After these Sardican Decrees concerning these Appeals from inferior to superior Ecclesiastical Judges see the eighth General Council can 26. against which Council tho the Grecians in Conc. Florent sess 6. oppose the Decrees of another following it yet it is not contradicted in this I quote out of it by that or any other later Council Vt qui se laesum arbitrabitur a proprio Episcopo possit Metropolitanum appellare qui datis dimissoriis ad se causam advocet Liceat tamen Episcopis provocare ad Patriarcham si crediderint se injustitiam pati a Metropolitano a quo litibus finis imponatur After which Canon I will set you down that passage of the English Bishops upon their relinquishing the See of Rome in their Book of the Institution of a Christian man in Sacr. of Orders quoted by Dr. Hammond Schism c. 5. and much relied on by King James in Apol. pro juramento fidel p. 124. that you may see whether things were well-consider'd by them It was say they many hundred years before the Bishop of Rome could acquire any power of a Primate over any other Bishops which were not within his Province in Italy And the Bishops of Rome do now transgress their own profession made in their Creation For all the Bishops of Rome always when they be consecrated and made Bishops of that See do make a solemn profession and vow that they shall inviolably observe all the Ordinances made in the Eight first General Councils among which it is especially provided that all causes shall be determined within the Province where they begun and that by the Bishops of the same Province which absolutely excludes all Papal i. e. foreign power out of these Realms Now the Canons the Bishops refer to are Conc. Nic. c. 6. 1 Conc. Const. c. 2 3. and Conc. Milevit c. 22. which Canons how little they make for their purpose see below § 19 c. and before § 14. But the Pope making solemn vow to observe Conc. 8. can 26. as well as these did he vow contradictions or if these contradicting doth not in Ecclesiastical constitutions the later stand in force Again for not appealing of all persons in every cause to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court see Conc. Milev whereof St. Austin was a member Can. 22. Placuit ut Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis quas habuerint si de judiciis Episcoporum questi fuerint vicini Episcopi eos audiant inter eos quicquid est finiant adhibiti ab eis ex consensu Episcoporum suorum Quod si ab eis provocandum putaverint non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellandum a nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiantur But note here that this Canon was made only concerning inferior Clergy not Bishops tho some mistakingly urge it against any appeals whatever and as Bellarmin saith was ratified by Innocentius Bishop of Rome quoting his Epistle among St. Austin's the 93. tho indeed that Epistle confirms nothing else save their Decrees against Pelagius But however this is a thing it seems by Bellarmin that the Pope will not oppose See about this non-appealing Dr. Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 562. where he brings in also further to confirm this the Imperial Constitution Justin.
the Roman Bishops power now to look a little back into the former ages wherein by reason of the persecutions by heathen Princes the Church's discipline was not altogether so perfectly formed See Athanasius de sententia Dionysii Alexandrini § 23. n. 7. where he relates how Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria living above fifty years before the Nicene Council was accus'd by some of Pentapolis as erroneous in the Doctrine of the Trinity to Dionysius the then Bishop of Rome and thereupon writ an Apology to purge himself Quidam ex Ecclesia recte quidem sentientes sed tamen ignari c. Romam ascenderunt ibique eum apud Dionysium ejusdem nominis Romanum Praesulem accusaverunt Re comperta Alexandrinus postulavit a Romano Praesule ut objecta sibi indicaret non rixandi animo sed sui purgandi Apologiam scripsit Here it seems A. D. 266. long before the cause of Athanasius his addresses were made by the Alexandrians to the Roman Bishop See St. Cyprian contemporary to Dionysius to procure the deposing of Marcianus Metropolitan Bishop of Arles in France because he sided with Novatian writes thus to Stephen Bishop of Rome about it Dirigantur in Provinciam ad plebem Arelatae consistentem a te literae quibus abstento Marciano alius in locum ejâ—s substituatur Where Dr. Field l. 5 c. 37. grams Cyprian rather writ to him to do this than did it himself because the Roman Bishop was Patriarch of the West And it appears from his 68th Epistle that in his time two Bishops of Spain Basilides and Martialis ejected for giving their consent to some Idolatry appeal'd to the Bishop of Rome to restore them to their Dignities Romam pergens i. e. Basilides Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum gestae rei ac tacitae veritatis ignarum fefellit ut exambiret reponi se injuste in Episcopatum de quo fuerat juste depositus In which Epistle he censures Stephen indeed but not for receiving Basilides his appeal or hearing his cause but for judging it amiss yet some way excuseth him also as misinform'd Neque enim tam culpandus est ille saith he eui negligenter obreptum est quam hic execrandus qui fraudulenter obrepsit But had Stephen had no just authority to judg this matter or reponere Basilidem in Episcopatum St. Cyprian would not have accused him of negligence i. e. in believing without seeking better information what Basilides or his friends said but of usurpation and intrusion and tyranny in judging in matters no way belonging to him But he allowing the Western Patriarchs authority over the Gallican Bishops as appears in the last instance could not rationally deny him the same over the Spanish Therefore that which this Father saith before that Basilides his appeal and Stephen's sentence ordinationem jure perfect am rescindere non potuit is to be understood with reference to the justness of the cause not of the authority For one may rightly be accus'd of injustice either who doth a thing and hath no just power to do it or who hath a just power to do a thing and hath no just cause And therefore the Spanish ought to seek a reversion of such sentence by presenting to their Patriarch perfecter informations Else surely his sentence who is granted to have the supreme authority to judg is to stand and he must give account thereof to God And yet higher before Cyprian's time about A.D. 200 we find in Eus Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 22 c. that in a controversie about the celebration of Easter whether on the Lord's day or on the same day with the Jews after many Provincial Councils in a peaceful time of the whole Christian Church call'd in several Countries as well of the East as Aegypt Palestine as of the West who all agreed with the Roman Bishop excepting Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and the Bishops of Asia minor who assembled in Council as the rest resolv'd to continue their custom of keeping it the same day with the Jews and in a Letter to Rome signified so much We find I say that Victor then Bishop of Rome either intended or also executed an Excommunication upon Polycrates and his party as pertinaciously retaining a Mosaical ceremony which might be an introduction to more Executed an excommunication not negative as Dr. Field would have it p. 558. by with-drawing his own communion from them but privative and authoritative by rejecting and debarring them from communion of the whole Catholick Church tho indeed debarring them from the Roman communion debars them also from all others that communicate with the Roman for those who may not communicate with an Heretick neither may communicate with any others who by communicating with such Heretick make themselves partakers of his sin This seems to me clear by the words of Eusebius Victor totius Asiae Ecclesias a communionis societate abscindere nititur tanquam in haeresin declinantes literas mittit quibus omnes simul absque discretione ab Ecclesiastico faedere segregaret Extant Episcoporum literae quibus asperius objurgant Victorem velut inutiliter ecclesiae commodis consulentem Ecclesiae i. e. universalis And of Iraeneus who amongst the rest reprehended him quod non recte fecerit abscindens a corporis i. e. Christi not Romanae Ecclesiae unitate tot tantas Ecclesias Dei And by Polycrates his Letter Euseb l. 5. c. 22. to the Church of Rome wherein it appears both that he assembled his Asian Bishops at the Bishop of Rome's intimation and that some censure had been threaten'd him from thence upon non-conformity to which he answers That it were better to obey God than men His words are Sexaginta quinque â—nnos aetatis gerens non perturbabor ex his quae ad terrorem proferuntur quia majores mei dixerunt Obtemperare oportet Deo magis quam hominibus As for Irenaeus or other Bishops reprehending this fact or purpose of Victors it was not because he usurp'd or exercis'd an authority of Excommunication over the Asiaticks not belonging to him but that he used such authority upon no just or sufficient cause namely upon such a declination from Apostolical tradition vel per negligentiam vel per imperitiam in so small a matter some compliance with the Jews to gain them partly excusing such a practice Thus a Prince who hath lawful power to inflict punishments upon his subjects when delinquent is reprehensible when punishing the innocent To this of Victor I may add another Excommunication not long after this by Stephen Bishop of Rome either inflicted or at least threatned to some of the Asian Churches in Cyprian's time that held the necessity or Rebaptization upon the Baptism of Hereticks Concerning which see Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 4. c. 4.6 See St. Austin's Epistle 162 the great care and superintendence which Melchiades Bishop of Rome before Sylvester in Constantine's time used over the African Churches in the Schism of
of that Church for such priviledges on the See of Rome and with the Emperor's conferring these priviledges to all succession without any joint authority of the Pope and bringing in provocatus antiquae consuetudinis ordine without mentioning the words immediately before Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia atque antiquae consuetudinis ordine provocatus he makes these words refer not to the Popes but to the Emperor 's former grant But meanwhile judge you if the Emperour might of his own accord erect Patriarchies or confer such priviledges without the Bishop of Rome's authority whether authoritate nostra firmamus illibata decernimus c and Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia be not not only needless but also ridiculous But if the Patriarch of the West's authoritate nostra firmamus was necessary to what the Emperour did then are all such instances rendred useless to the Doctor who can shew no such firmamus to the late erected Patriarchats And were not such testimonies extant yet the rescript of the same Emperour Valentinian quoted before p 86. seems a sufficient proof that no such priviledges as were prejudicial to the Roman See were granted by him 2. For the Bishop of Justiniana 1ª that he continued to receive the Pall as other Primats from the Bishop of Rome and that he had locum Apostolicae Sedis not the place of a but of the Apostolick See namely as the Pope's standing delegate for those parts subordinate to him the phrase being frequently used in this but I think never in the other sence lastly that the Bishop of Rome deputed the judgment of causes to him and for some misbehaviour in his place passed Ecclesiastical censures upon him I say for these things see 4. l. Indict 13. Ep. 15. Johanni Episcopo 1 ae Justinianae newly elected Pallium vero ex more transmisimus vices vos Apostolicae Sedis agere iterata innovatione decernimus Iterata innovatione which argues the first concession that he should have locum Apostolicae Sedis was from the Roman Bishop which Baronius Anno 535. saith Justinian with much importunity obtained of Vigilius after Agapetus his Predecessor had made a demur to grant it as being a thing too prejudicial to his Neighbour-Metropolitans And see 10. l. 5. Indict 34. Ep. where he refers the cause of Paulus Bishop of Dyaclina to the examination of the Bishop of Justiniana 1a. And see 2. l. Indict 11. Ep. 6. to the same Bishop where reprehending him for a singular act of injustice he saith Quod vero ad praesens attinet cassatis prius atque ad nihilum redactis praedictae sententiae tuae decretis ex Beati Apostolorum Principis authoritate decernimus triginta dierum spatio sacra te communione privatum ab omnipotenti Deo nostro tanti excessus veniam cum summa poenitentia ac lachrymis exorare Quod si c contumaciam fraternitatis tuae cognoscas adjuvante Deo severius puniendam After these see Justinianan's Constitution it self Novell 131. cap. 3. which runs thus Per tempus autem Beatissimum 1 ae Justinianae Archiepiscopum habere semper sub sua jurisdictione Episcopos Provinciarum Daciae c. in subjectis sibi Provinciis locum obtinere Sedis Apostolicae Romae secundum ea quae definita sunt a sanctissimo Papa Vigilio Which last words how reasonably Dr. Hammond Reply to Cath. Gentl. p. 96. interprets that Vigilius defin'd that the Bishop of Justin 1ª should be for ever after an absolute and free Patriarch independent on the Bishop of Rome or why the Emperour should require such a definition from Vigilius who as the Doctor holds had no right to hinder it I leave to your judgment after that you have well considered what is here alledged And see likewise this confessed by Dr Field 5. l. 38. c. p. 561. The same may be said of the Bishop of Justiniana the first who was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vicegerent in those parts upon signification of the Emperour's will and desire that it should be so Thus he And hence was this power conferred upon him finally to determine causes namely as the Pope's Delegate for that purpose and this exclusively not to Rome but to other Metropolitans within those Provinces newly subjected to him from whom to him not so from him to them might be Appeals 3. As for the third Primate of Carthage he is pretended only to be admitted to the like priviledges with Justiniana 1a. Thus have I set you down to save you the pains § 31. n. 1. or to prevent the usual neglect of searching them in the Authors some of the most notable passages for the first 600 years wherein you may find Calvin's confession Instit 4. l. 7. c. true nullum fuisse tempus quo non Romana Sedes imperium in alias Ecclesias appetiv rit but I add more obtinuerit too shewing as I think several ways not only the honour and dignity before but the authority and power of the Roman See over other Churches not only those under its Patriarchy but the Eastern also the Eastern not only single but joined in Councils power not only which Roman Bishops claimed but which Councils allowed testified confirmed and established and the greatest Bishops in the world repaired to for justice the most of those Roman Bishops whose authorities I have cited being eminent for sanctity and having the same title and reputation of Saints as the other ancient Fathers and the two last of them being quoted by Protestants as inveighers against an Universal Bishop as a forerunner of Antichrist that you may fee how much authority even the most moderate have assumed and all these transactions being before the times of the Emperour Phocas who by some Reformed see Dr. Hammond reply to Cathol Gentl. 3. c. 4. s. 14. n. is said to have laid the first foundations of the modern Roman Greatness in declaring him Episcopum Oecumenicum Caput omnium Ecclesiarum tho indeed Phocas his act was only in a quarrel of his against Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople adjudging the stile of Oecumenicus before much disputed between those two Bishops as you have seen not fit to be used by the Bishop of Constantinople and due only to the Bishop of Rome and that Paulus Diaconus de gestis Romanorum 18. l. quoted by Dr. Hammond meant no more see what the same Paulus saith de gestis Longobardorum 4 l. 37. c. and being of those ages wherein Dr. Field thro his 5th book denies to have bin any Roman Supremacy of power If it be said that the Roman Bishops out of whose writings many of these authorities are produced then claimed what others denied I think some other quotations intermingled out of those who were no Roman Bishops will shew this to be untrue Besides §. 31. n. 2. In the chief causes of all other divisions from the Roman Church excepting that of the late Reformation the Roman Church in the judgment of the Reformed the
visa fuerit non eis obsit quod contra honores eorum in transmarino Concilio statutum est Then contracting what is formerly said they conclude thus id est ut ordinati in parte Donati si ad Catholicam correcti transire voluerint non suscipiantur in honoribus suis secundum transmarinum Concilium exceptis his per quos Catholicae unitati consuletur Now some difference there is between their writing to the Pope and the Bishops of the former Council ne obsit for some and maneat for the rest and their decreeing against the Pope and that Council ne obfuerit for any Now this close is thus English'd by the Doctor our of Balsamon That they that have bin Ordain'd on the part of the Donatists shall not be proceeded with according to the transmarine Synod but shall the rather be receiv'd as those that take care for the Catholick Unity How well I leave to your judgment § 36 The Protestants ordinary Replies to these to me seeming not satisfactory Now to these several instances which I have drawn out of the primitive times the answers which are usually made by some for you must expect that nothing is said by any side which is not reply'd to by the other are such as these That such places as speak of the Primacy and Principality of the Roman Bishop speak only of that of Order and Dignity not of Power or Authority Apostolicae Cathedrae Principatus i. e. say they quoad dignitatem non quoad potestatem Rector domus Dei Ecclesiae Catholicoe or universalis Episcopus i.e. say they Vnus erectoribus domus Dei unus ex Episcopis c. That such places as mention appeals to the Bishop of Rome speak of them as made to him non ut ad Judicem sed ut ad ejusdem fidei fautorem ut ejusdem fidei professores in communionem suam admitteret non ob aliquam jurisdicendi authoritatem sed ob amicam communionis ejusdem societatem That the like addresses were made to other Patriarchs and Bishops for their communion and assistance as to him and that his Letters were requested and in behalf of sufferers directed to all parts of Chcistianity not by vertue of any authority he had to correct but by reason of the power he had from the reverence they gave to the dignity of his place every where to perswade That such places of Fathers or Councils as affirm that no publick affairs of the Church may be transacted without the Bishop of Rome are not appropriate therefore only to him but verified as much of the rest of the Patriarchs as of him That those places which mention his censuring excommunicating deposing Clergy that were not under his own Patriarchy speak not of any authoritative or privative excommunication to use the Bishop of Derry's expression Vind. c. 8. by way of jurisdiction excluding such from the communion of Christ but only of a negative in the way of Christian discretion by with-drawing him or his from communion with them for fear of infection for declaring his non-currence with or countenancing of their fault c. There being great difference as Dr. Field observes p. 558. between excommunication properly so nam'd or authoritatively forbidding all men to communicate with such and such and the rejecting only of them from our communion and fellowship And I also confess and grant such negations of communicating with others anciently used and amongst rest used also by the Bishop of Rome who often prohibited his Legates and others from communicating with some other Bishop as with the Bishop of Constantinople when he used the stile of Vniversalis or from going to and being present at their celebration of Divine Service when he did not excommunicate the other nay when also he admitted the ministers of the other and those who communicated with the other to come to his communion and celebration of Divine Service See Gregory 6. l. 31. Ep. to Eulogius and Anastasius indulging this to those who were sent from Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople to him But that all the Bishops excommunications of those without his Patriarchy were only such this is the thing denied That the like may be said of his confirming or restoring his fellow-Bishops that it was done not by way of forensical justice but fraternal approbation and that all other Patriarchs used excommunicating deposing acquitting and restoring in the same manner allowing or withdrawing their communion from their fellow-Bishops as they saw fit and that they confirmed the Roman Bishop by their communicatory letters as he them Which things how well they agree with the above said forms of such Ecclesiastical censures and with other practices of the Roman Bishops towards others much differing from the practices of other Patriarchs either towards him or towards others how well they agree with the addresses made from both Church-governors and Councils upon differences and contentions in the Church to Rome addresses not used in the same manner to the other Patriarchs yet would have bin done equally to them also had all Patriarchs bin esteemed in their power equal especially how they agree with what is said § 24. and § 18. upon reviewing the instances I have given I leave to your judgment That the places which speak of his judging causes and inflicting such Ecclesiastical censures c speak not of him singly but as joined with his Western Bishops they meaning by this not some of his Western Bishops only whose assistance the Roman Bishop ordinarily useth in all his judgments but his whole Patriarchal Council That those places which do argue joining-with the Roman to be joinning with the Catholick communion see before § 23. n. 2. and n. 3. and § 32. as it must needs be that if God hath appointed any person or Council as a supreme Guide whom the rest ought to obey such members as do not obey cannot be Catholick are spoken only with respect to such a Roman Bishop at such a time who in their opinion held the true Profession and not that all the Roman Bishops at any time have or shall hold it those who made these expressions accounting the Roman Bishop orthodox and catholick because he then was of such a faith as they approved not the faith orthodox and catholick because it was the faith of the Roman Bishop or which he approved So Spalatensis in answer to the places produced out of S. Hierom. in 23. § saith 4. l. 10. c. 23. n. Quod Hieronymus Damaso hoc est Petri cathedrae consociari velit significat privilegium illius Cathedrae adhuc Hieronymi tempore vigens circa fidei puritatem and 88 n. Quasi dicat quia nunc not perpetuo in terris video Apostolicam doctrinam Romae maxime puram conservari ideo in his dissensionibus volo tibi adhaerere Which answer circularly makes him to judge first in what Church the true doctrine is who is to seek what Church to adhere to to be guided by it to
the true doctrine Whereas those who submitted to the Roman as the most orthodox gathered it to be orthodox as being S. Peter's Seat and the prime Apostolical See That most of these testimonies and examples are not alledged out of the first and purest times non esse ex prima antiquitate sed post Nicaenam Synodum cum schismata partium studia in Christianos valere coeperunt Yet then that as their pride claimed much as they claimed indeed great authority from the beginning so were they by the resoluteness of their fellow-Bishops as much opposed and what they decreed seldom executed And lastly That much more dominion over the Church of God than is shewed here to have bin then practised is now assumed but what is this to the vindicator only of their ancient practice and That were it not assumed yet many and unsufferable are the inconveniences of so remote a Judge of Appeals But see concerning this what is said before § 14. To such exceptions as these I will trouble you with no reply If you do not find the former passages reviewed sufficiently to justifie themselves against these limitations and restrictions and to vindicate much more authority to the Apostolical See than is here confessed §. 37. Such power anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome not only exercised jointly with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended for me you may admit them for good answers Hitherto I have bin shewing you the subordinations of Clergy for regular Ordinations for setling doctrine and discipline in the Church and for deciding differences and amongst these from § 11. the great power given to Patriarchs and amongst and above them from § 21. more particularly the power and preeminence the Roman See hath anciently challenged or others yeilded to it In the next place observe That the exercise of this power anciently lay not in the Roman Bishop or other Patriarchs only as joined with or President in a Patriarchal Synod nor in Primates and Metropolitans only as President in a Provincial a refuge which many willingly fly to in their defence of a dissimilitude of the present to the ancient Government of the Church by them but in them as using only their private council or the assistance of such neighbouring Bishops as could without much trouble be convened Of which I shall give you an account out of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Field who have made it up to my hand Thus then Dr. Field 5. l. 30. c. p. 513. Provincial Councils were by ancient canons of the Church to be holden in every Province twice every year It is very necessary say the Fathers of the Council of Nice that there should be a Synod twice in the year in every Province that all the Bishops of the Province meeting together may in common think upon those things that are doubtful and questionable For the dispatch of Ecclesiastical business and the determining of matters in controversy we think it were fit say the Fathers in the Council of Antioch that in every Province Synods of Bishops should be assembled twice every year To the same effect he quotes Conc. Chalced. 18. c. see likewise Canon Apostol 38. But in process of time when the Governours of the Church could not conveniently assemble in Synods twice a year the Fathers of the Sixth General Council decreed Can. 8. that yet in any case there should be a Synod of Bishops once every year for Ecclesiastical questions Likewise the Seventh General Council can 6. decreeth in this sort Whereas the Canon willeth judicial inquisition to be made twice every year by the assembly of Bishops in every Province and yet for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods the Fathers of the 6th General Council decreed it should be once in the year and then things amiss to be redressed we renew this latter canon But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy meetings we shall find that they met not so often and therefore the Council of Basil appointeth Episcopal Synods to be held once every year and Provincial at least once in three years and so doth Conc. Trident. 24. sess 2. cap. pro moderandis moribus corrigendis excessibus controversiis componends c. which accordingly were kept every third year by Carlo Borrhomeo Metropolitan of Millain And so in time causes growing many and the difficulties intolerable in coming together and in staying to hear these causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by canons and Imperial laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And much what to the same purpose Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 257. What power a Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province by the Canon-law the same and no other had the Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate But a Metropolitan anciently could do nothing out of his own particular Diocess without the concurrence of the major part of the Bishops of his Province nor the Patriarch in like manner without the advice and consent of his Metropolitans and Bishops Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority In convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them in pronouncing sentence according to plurality of voices when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent difficulties or differences I confess that by reason of the great difficulty and charge of convocating so many Bishops and keeping them so long together until all causes were heard and determined and by reason of those inconveniences which did fall upon their Churches in their absence Provincial Councils were first reduced from twice to once in the year and afterwards to once in three years And in process of time the hearing of Appeals and such-like causes and the execution of the canons in that behalf were referred to Metropolitans until the Papacy swallowed up all the authority of Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops Thus the Bishop Now concerning what they have said note 1. That tho Provincial Councils in some ages and places were more frequently assembled in the time of whole sitting as the assembled could do nothing without their Primate or Metropolitan so neither he without them yet in the intervals of such Synods which intervals were too long to leave all matters of controversy whatever till then in suspence and happened many times also anciently to be longer than the canons permitted the Metropolitans authority was not void but they limited and directed by the former decrees of such Synods were trusted with the execution thereof and with the doing of many things especially in ordinary causes by themselves alone but so as their acts of justice might upon complaint be reviewed in the sitting of the next Council and if
of Temporal States If any thing happen to be unjustly demanded it excuseth us not from paying justs debts The Office must not be violated for the fault of the Person Neither can never so many examples brought for such things done by Princes § 48 That Ecclesiastical Councils may change their former Eccl. Laws tho Lay-Magistrates may not be a sufficient warrant to any Prince to do the like much less to advance beyond such patterns and do something more See before § 42. After these a third proposition must also be granted That tho Seculars Princes or others cannot yet Councils may change some former Ecclesiastical Laws and Customs and when they do so are to be obey'd in their change Therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nicene Council and Jura quae jam inde ab initio habent serventur and nullus invadat Provinciam quae non prius atque ab initio sub illius fuerat potestate in the Ephesine Council frequently press'd by Dr. Hammond see Sch. p. 61 65 100. so far as these refer not to Apostolical traditions but Ecclesiastical constitutions must be understood to oblige all the Church's subjects only so long till the Church shall think fit to change any thing in them Nor did they hinder but that afterward she advanc'd the Roman Church at last yeilding also her consent the See of Constantinople contrary to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both before Alexandria and Antioch into a Supremacy the next to Rome In whose power it is as in Secular Law-givers to alter her Laws at pleasure Nor can any G. Council decree that no General Council after them in matters of humane institution shall change their Decrees § 49 Nor can any particular Church claim that liberty unto them by any former Canons That Prelates and others stand obliged to those Church-Canons which in a superior Council are made with the consent of their Predecessors till such Councils shall reverse them of which by later Canons made by the same authority they receive a restraint The truth of this fourth proposition also I think ought not to be doubted of That where the Bishops or Metropolitans suppose subjected to no Patriarch yet are present in Councils presided in by one or more Patriarchs and do consent to the Decrees thereof such Provinces and the Prelates thereof stand obliged to those Decrees and cannot afterward at pleasure reverse them and restore to themselves their former liberty Else Metropolitans who are under no Patriarch will be liable to the Decrees of no Councils at all no not of such wherein they appear wherein they vote wherein they oblige themselves But supposing they are as free as Patriarchs themselves yet where in Councils many Patriarchs meet the vote of the major part obligeth all Review what is said before § 18. § 50 Now to make some Reflections if you have not made them already upon what hath been discoursed here Reflections on what hath been said in relation to the Church of England § 51 1. It cannot reasonably be denied that supposing she had not receiv'd her Conversion from the See of Rome That the Church of England seems obliged in as much observance to the Roman See as the former instances have shewed the Orientals to have yeilded to it nor the Nicene or other Canons had constituted the Bishop of this City sole Patriarch of the West of which thing review what is said before § 3. yet she is bound to render so much not only honour but submission also to that See for what cause soever it was that such was given to that last Seat of the two great Apostles Peter and Paul as it hath been shew'd by the instances made above in those primitive times that the whole Church of God the Oriental Churches and Bishops the Patriarchs themselves and even Cyprus so much pleaded concerning which review § 18. have render'd unto him in appeals decision of controversies approbation of Prelates Ecclesiastical censures c. For example If the rule spoken of § 22. praeter or sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum have any obligation upon the Oriental the same it will have upon the English Bishops or Synods And the same power the Roman Bishop hath of receiving or hearing Appeals suppose from Alexandria as in Athanasius his cause review § 21. the same he hath in those from England For what exemptions can England plead more than Alexandria § 52 2. Yet farther There seems to be the same ground of her submission to him as Patriarch however this submission be founded as of other Western Provinces That the Church of England seems obliged to yeild the same observance to the Roman See as other Western Provinces upon the 6th Nicene Canon her Neighbours who still continue obedience to that See And the Mos antiquus obtineat seems to put all the Occidental coast of the world who ever were then already or whoever thenceforward should be converted under his jurisdiction see § 3 In which Canon as not Brittain so no other Western Province is particularly nam'd tho it appears from some instances above that before Nice both Spain and France and Africk were Christian and subject to the Roman See see § 6. And then was the Brittish Nation also already Christian three of its Bishops being present at the Council of Arles in France ten years before this of Nice see Hamm. Sch. p. 110. and many suffering Martyrdom here in Dioclesian's days amongst the rest the famous St. Alban And the Arms of Lichfield representing many mangled Bodies are said to be born in remembrance of the many Christians who in that persecution suffer'd there Christian yet higher before Tertullian's and Origen's time who testifie so much of it Orig. in Ezech. Hom. 4. Quando terra Britanniae ante adventum Christi in unius Dei consensit religionem Quando terra Maurorum c. Nunc vero propter Ecclesias quae mundi limites tenent universa terra cum laetitia clamat ad Dominum Israel Tertull. adv Judaeos c. 7. Cui Christo crediderunt jam Getulorum varietates Maurorum multi fines Hispaniarum omnes termini Galliarum diversae nationes Brittannorum inaccessa Romanis loca Christo vero subd ta see also his Apologet. Christian in the days of Eleutherius Bishop of Rome A. D. 183. saith Venerable Bede Hist Ang. l. 1. c. 4. At which time Christianity by the late favourable Edicts of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius enjoying much tranquillity one Lucius or Leuer Maur a King of some part of Brittain bearing some affection to the Religion or Christians from their good conversation which recommended it and also for the miracles which confirm'd it is said to have sent two learned men Elvanus Avalonius or of Glastenbury and Medvinus de Belga or of Wells to the Bishop of Rome to desire from him some holy men to instruct him in Religion and some Roman Imperial Laws to direct him in his Civil
disliked repealed 2. That tho Metropolitan Synods in some times were not unfrequent yet Patriarchal Synods were never nor never well could be so nor find we any set times appointed for calling them as for calling the other so that as t is plain by many former instances that the Patriarch ordinarily did so t is all reason that he should decide some appeals without them tho in some cases extraordinary and of great consequence such Councils also were assembled 3. Since where they speak of the Metropolitans judging matters alone to have bin a practice only of latter times yet they allow this to be done upon very rational grounds observe that there were the same rational grounds of doing it anciently and again that the practice they justify for Metropolitans in latter times they have much more reason to allow to Patriarchs in all times because the greater the Councils are with the more trouble are they conven'd and lastly that the reformed Metropolitans themselves who blame the Bishop of Rome's managing Ecclesiastical affairs by himself alone i. e. without a Patriarchal Synod yet themselves think it reasonable to do the same thing themselves alone i. e. without their Provincial Synod authorizing their High-commission Court and blaming his Consistory Now what is allowed to Patriarchal proceedings without Councils in respect of appeals from their several Provinces the same it is that in the differences and contests of Patriarchs themselves and of other greater Bishops since it is meet for preserving the Church's peace and unity that some person or assembly should have the authority to decide these and since it is unreasonable and for the great trouble thereof not feisible that a General Council or also Patriarchal in all such differences should be assembled the same I say it is that by ancient custom and Ecclesiastical canons hath bin conferred on the Bishop of Rome with his Council tho granted liable to error He being more eminently honourable than the rest by reason of the larger extent of his Patriarchy of the great power and ancient renown of that City which in Spiritual matters he governed but especially of the two greatest Apostles Peter and Paul there ending their days in the government of that See and leaving him there the Successor of their power Yet is this office of supreme judicature so committed unto him that his judgments only stand in force till such a meeting and may be reviewed and where contrary to former canons reversed by it concerning which see the saying of S. Austin quoted before § 22. Restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesie universae Concilium c. and the saying of Zosimus quoted § 22. n. 2. and the Epistle of Gelasius quoted § 25. n. 3. and what is said § 22. Now all Metropolitan and Patriarchal authority in the intervals of Councils being limited to the execution of Conciliary Laws and Canons or at least to the acting nothing against them if the question be asked who shall judge whether so they do I answer none but a superior Council till which their judgment stands good For as I have largely shewed elsewhere if Litigants once may judge of this when their Judges judge rightly and not against the laws and accordingly may yeild or substract their obedience such obedience is arbitrary In civil Courts Princes or their Ministers are obliged to judge according to or not against the laws of the Kingdom may the litigant therefore reject their judgment when it seems to him contrary to these laws I believe not § 38. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by Ecclesiastical Canon and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by the power Secular Thus much having bin said of the authority and jurisdiction given by Ecclesiastical constitutions and ancient customs and practice to some Ecclesiastical persons above others and amongst them supereminently above all the rest to the Roman Bishop and given to these persons not only as joined with Councils but as single Magistrates in the vacancy thereof in the next place these Propositions also I think must necessarily be granted First That whatever authority is thus setled upon any persons by the canons and customs of the Church concerning the managing of affairs not civil but meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical cannot be annulled and dissolved nor cannot be conferred contrary to the Church's constitutions on any other person by any Secular power neither by Heathen and unbelieving Princes who were enemies to the Church nor by Christian much less because these are in Spiritual matters Sons and Subjects of the Church and now obliged to obey her laws neither by the one who so might easily hinder the propagation of Christianity nor by the other who if happening at any time to be Heretical or Schismatical might easily hinder the profession of the Orthodox faith or disturb the Church's peace Thus Grotius a great Lawyer in Rivet Apol. discuss p. 70. Imperatorum Regum aliquod esse officium etiam circa res Ecclesiae in confesso est At non tale quale in saeculi negotiis Ad tutandos non ad violandos Canones jus hoc comparatum est Nam cum Principes filii sint Ecclesiae non debent vi in matrem uti Omne corpus sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi quibus membra obligentur hoc jus etiam Ecclesiae competere apparet Act. 15.28 Heb. 13.17 where he quotes Facundus saying of Martianus Cognovit ille quibus in causis uteretur Principis potestate in quibus exhiberet obedientiam Christiani And Obedite Praepositis etiam Regibus dictum See this discoursed more largely in Success Clerg § 64 65. 2. And further That it is Schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power so established and never since by the same Ecclesiastical laws reversed I say here concerning matters Ecclesiastical not Civil therefore let that Proposition of Dr. Hammond schism 6. c. p. 129. for me stand good That a Law tho made by a General Council and with the consent of all Christian Princes i. e. of that time yet if it have respect to a civil right may in this or that Nation be repealed i. e. by that Prince's Successors provided only That the ordaining or confirming of inferior Governors and Officers of the Church the assembling of Synods and decision of controversies of Religion the ordering Church-service and discipline the Ecclesiastical censures upon delinquents and the like for preventing or suppressing of Heresie Schism and Faction and for preserving the Church in unity of doctrine and practice Provided I say that such things be not reckoned amongst civil rights as they may not be because all these were things used by the Church under the heathen Emperors even against their frequent Edicts yet could they not have bin lawfully so used if any of these had encroached on civil rights in any of which civil rights the heathen Prince might claime as much lawful power to prohibit them as the Christian